In response to Ben’s comments I’ve edited my post to clarify additional situations in which I don’t think giving an org a heads up is needed:
I’m not advocating this for cases where you’re worried that the org will retaliate or otherwise behave badly if you give them advance warning, or for cases where you’ve had a bad experience with an org and don’t want any further interaction. For example, I expect Curzi didn’t give Leverage an opportunity to prepare a response to My Experience with Leverage Research, and that’s fine.
Not sure how much this addresses your concerns?
Reading your comments on Sarah’s post, it sounds like your objecting to a norm where someone criticizing is expected to address private feedback they get from an org before publishing? I’m not advocating that—as I wrote above:
While you’re welcome to make edits in response to what you learn from them, you don’t have an obligation to: it’s fine to just say “I’m planning to publish this as-is, and I’d be happy to discuss your concerns publicly in the comments.”
Reading your comments on Sarah’s post, it sounds like your objecting to a norm where someone criticizing is expected to address private feedback they get from an org before publishing?
That’s definitely not the only thing I’m objecting to.
This norm should not exist at all, because it will inevitably reduce the probability that true and/or correct criticism reaches the public.
The downsides you point out are to the organization (or person) themselves. But I do not think that members of the public have any obligation to consider the org’s interests in such cases. Indeed, it would be wrong to do so, to whatever extent that consideration of the org’s interests (and any actions, or perceived obligation for actions, that result from such consideration) may tip the scales toward not publishing the criticism.
It seems to me that it’s morally acceptable to consider the org’s interests only insofar as they have an effect on the public (construed here in an identical way to “the public” in “learning true facts and correct criticism of an org benefits the public). And even in those cases, disclosure of true information and correct criticism must be weighted much more strongly than some other purported effects (in accordance with the principle of non-paternalism).
In short, the author of a critical post owes the target of the criticism no consideration of consequences, so long as obligations of honesty, accuracy, legality, appropriateness, etc. are met. The author may owe the post’s audience (a.k.a. the public) more than that, or may not; that may be argued. But to the target—no.
In response to Ben’s comments I’ve edited my post to clarify additional situations in which I don’t think giving an org a heads up is needed:
Not sure how much this addresses your concerns?
Reading your comments on Sarah’s post, it sounds like your objecting to a norm where someone criticizing is expected to address private feedback they get from an org before publishing? I’m not advocating that—as I wrote above:
Almost not at all.
That’s definitely not the only thing I’m objecting to.
This norm should not exist at all, because it will inevitably reduce the probability that true and/or correct criticism reaches the public.
The downsides you point out are to the organization (or person) themselves. But I do not think that members of the public have any obligation to consider the org’s interests in such cases. Indeed, it would be wrong to do so, to whatever extent that consideration of the org’s interests (and any actions, or perceived obligation for actions, that result from such consideration) may tip the scales toward not publishing the criticism.
It seems to me that it’s morally acceptable to consider the org’s interests only insofar as they have an effect on the public (construed here in an identical way to “the public” in “learning true facts and correct criticism of an org benefits the public). And even in those cases, disclosure of true information and correct criticism must be weighted much more strongly than some other purported effects (in accordance with the principle of non-paternalism).
In short, the author of a critical post owes the target of the criticism no consideration of consequences, so long as obligations of honesty, accuracy, legality, appropriateness, etc. are met. The author may owe the post’s audience (a.k.a. the public) more than that, or may not; that may be argued. But to the target—no.